And by “neutral buffer state” they mean a Russian territory, that can’t elect its own leaders, has no control over its resources and lives under a permanent Russian occupation.
I still remember a short period of time in the first half of 2022 where even the most tankiest of people clearly felt unease from the war Russia started. The sheer evil of it broke through the propaganda they had integested, and for like 3 months they weren’t sure if they should support it or not.
But eventually they got around to supporting it somehow. The mind can explain black to be white or perhaps some of them got actual instructions how to communicate. 1968 Czechoslovakia all over again.
The pro-Russian propoganda on social media clawed them right back. The climate went from “How can we help stop the atrocities in Ukraine?” to “Why are we sending so much to Ukraine when our own country/veterans need help at home?” and other such bullshit they’ve never truly cared about or contributed toward.
Indeed and Putin’s Sock Puppet will green light the next Russian invasion of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Removed by mod
Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?
Putin literally said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire. What the fuck was thay suppose to mean, then? A joke?
Jfc the number of people who don’t believe the terrible things Dictators say they are going to do is too damn high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Relations_between_Georgia_and_the_West
During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, American president George W. Bush campaigned for offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine. However, Germany and France said that offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would be “an unnecessary offence” for Russia.[99] NATO stated that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted in the alliance and pledged to review the requests for MAP in December 2008.[100] Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Bucharest during the summit. At the conclusion of the summit on 4 April, Putin said that NATO’s enlargement towards Russia “would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country”.[101] Following the Bucharest summit, Russian hostility increased and Russia started to actively prepare for the invasion of Georgia.[102] The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out “steps of a different nature” in addition to military action if Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.[103] General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to wage the war against Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. According to Van Herpen, Russia aimed to stop Georgia’s accession to NATO and also to bring about a “regime change”.[83][104]
There is a direct cause-effect relationship for Russias invasion of Georgia and it seems that at the time France and Germany were aware of this, while Bush pushed for an escalation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Geopolitical_impact
The 2008 war was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military had been used against an independent state, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to use military force to attain its political objectives.[287] Robert Kagan argued that “Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point” because it “marked the official return of history”.[288] The failure of the Western security organisations to react swiftly to Russia’s attempt to violently revise the borders of an OSCE country revealed its deficiencies. The division between Western European and Eastern European states also became apparent over the relationship with Russia. Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries received a clear message from the Russian leadership that the possible accession to NATO would cause a foreign incursion and the break-up of the country. Effective takeover of Abkhazia was also one of Russia’s geopolitical goals.
The war also affected Georgia’s ongoing and future memberships in international organisations. On 12 August 2008 the country proclaimed that it would quit the Commonwealth of Independent States, which it held responsible for not avoiding the war. Its departure became effective in August 2009.[291] The war hindered Georgia’s prospects for joining NATO for the foreseeable future.[87][292] Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have accepted former Soviet republics if Russia had not attacked Georgia. “If you … had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now,” Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.
According to academic Martin Malek, western countries did not feel it was necessary to aggravate tensions with Russia over “tiny and insignificant” Georgia. He wrote in the Caucasian Review of International Affairs that Western policy makers did not want to alienate Russia because its support was necessary to solve “international problems”.[38] The May 2015 report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament stated that “the reaction of the EU to Russia’s aggression towards, and violation of the territorial integrity of, Georgia in 2008 may have encouraged Russia to act in a similar way in Ukraine”.[294] The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought the memories of the Russo-Georgian War again into a broader geopolitical focus. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on 6 March 2022, the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson stated that Russia’s actions in Georgia in 2008 was one of the lessons of the past that the West has failed to learn
This isn’t just “Putin said”. There seems to be a quite clear understanding of that being the trigger point for Russia among foreign policy politicians and experts in Europe.
You realise that Russia invading people for even considering the chance to a mutual defence pact isn’t Western escelation, right? If anything it is proof that Russia has been planning to invade them since long before all of this.
Russia isn’t at any risk of NATO countries attacking them because NATO countries have no obligation to protect an aggressor member-state. They became hostile because they were losing their chance to warmonger.
Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?
That is your thesis. As can be seen with Russia invasion of Georgia and as it is understood by European politicians and experts, this thesis seems rather weak. This has nothing to do with whether Russias view is justified or not.
But again i’d like to invite the thought experiment. Imagine Mexico or Canada to join a military defense pact with Russia. How do you think the US would react? Which reaction would be justified in your eyes?
If you say that it is different because of how Russia has been using military violence to further its interests, which is a good point, how does that differ from the US invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?
If the US is expanding its influence towards the borders of other nations with power aspirations, it is not perceived any different how we would perceive their influence towards us. Case in point Ukraine. It is not just said, that Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a problem because it is an illegal invasion, but it is also said that Ukraine is defending “our” western freedom. But you can’t have it both ways.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were never colonies or US owned. After W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil he was vilified and the opposition party got to replace them for 8 years, which were spent investing in peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to reassemble autonomously as long as they did so peacefully. Obama earned a nobel peace prize. Then, the next guy in office from the same party as Bush decided to withdraw troops and release thousands of captured militants which lead to an immediate collapse of middle eastern state of Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Putin has been in power for decades and will continue to do so until he dies. He is attempting to expand Russia, take complete authority over neighboring states.
Are you seriously arguing, that no one should feel threatened by the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, because then the leadership of the US changed, while the occupations continued for two more decades?
With that sentiment it is no wonder, that most of the world that is not aligned with the US feel threatened by them. Also you should listen to Putins claims about Ukraine. It is the exact same bullshit. “It is just a special military operation”. “We have to get rid of their corrupt leaders.” “They will have freedom and self determination under us, if they are peaceful.”
NATO membership was pootins public reason for war
One of the listed reasons, yes. Other reasons:
-
Protecting russia-speaking people of Donbass (almost identical reason Hitler gave for invading Austria and Sudetenlands in 1938)
-
Historical and cultural justifications, Putin claimed Ukraine is not a legitimate state (also an argument used by Hitler in 1938)
-
To stop “aggression of Ukraine in Luhansk and Donetsk” (Hitler accused Poland of the same in 1939)
-
Reclaiming rightful territory (Hitler referenced the Treaty of Versailles as reason for his wars)
-
Claiming that diplomacy failed and that Putin has no choice but to invade (also said by Hitler)
It’s almost as if Putin is Hitler reincarnated.
-
Putin literally said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire. What the fuck was thay suppose to mean, then?
It meant simply alliances. NED installing nazis and calling it democracy to instigate war on Russia isn’t going to be welcome.
Interesting that these troll accounts are almost always less than a month old. How long is your contract for?
BOOM you have been tagged
Tankies need to toe the party line.
Russia is the bad guy in this conflict. 110%. But there’s no reason to start making up reasons why. Ukraine was not a neutral non-NATO buffer state after the euromaidan coup, and it doesn’t need to be for the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing invasion to be wrong, which they are. All made up reasons do is give your opponents ammunition.
This meme seems to undercut its own argument. No one can honestly argue that post-Euromaidan Ukraine was intent on remaining a buffer between Russia and NATO. In 2014 Ukraine made it clear that it was resolved to go to the Western camp and was sick of Russian influence. So what exactly is the argument here?
I’m not going to entertain the thought of what “neutrality” would mean, because the entire “neutral buffer” argument is just Russian propaganda. Ukraine wasn’t neutral before 2014, it was squarely within the Russian sphere of influence since the collapse of the union. Let’s reverse the situation. Let’s say Russia wins, dismantles the current Ukrainian government and sets up the “legitimate” Ukrainian government, would Ukraine become a “neutral buffer”? No. It would become a vassal state of Russia because Russia can’t give Ukraine the autonomy to make their own decisions, otherwise they might decide to turn westward again.
Maybe that’s the hypocrisy the meme is pointing to, that the neutrality argument in its entirety is bullshit because Ukraine was never neutral to begin with.
The argument you make ignores a few - well, many - ENORMOUS caveats. The key question is security neutrality. Ukraine may have been considered in Russia’s “sphere of influence” economically, culturally and to some degree politically, but on the matter of security that is absolutely not the case.
Since independence it has straddled the line, with several attempts to push closer to the West due to structural security disputes with Russia left over from independence. Just for one example, a nation that was in the Russia sphere of influence would not have sent troops to aid the US occupation of Iraq, an invasion Russia opposed, in order to win favor with the Bush administration.
I really dislike the attempt to frame very commonly use concept of neutrality, which is a term that even NATO scholarship on the issue uses to refer to Ukrainian non-alignment, as “prooaganda”.
I dislike even more when discussions about the history of th issue are met with counterfactuals and hypotheticals. Then it becomes a counterproductive polemical debate where one can claim that Putin and Ukraine would be lovey-dovey besties forever if not for NATO expansion or that Putin would absorb Ukraine in a neo-Soviet Anschluss and march on Riga and Warsaw if not for NATO. It’s not useful framing at all.
If the key question is security neutrality how exactly was the EU-Ukraine association agreement a security issue for Russia? Because Euromaidan wasn’t about joining NATO, it was about wanting the possibility of joining the EU.
The EU-Ukraine agreement wasn’t the single issue in 2014, though it the catalyst. Economic integration with the EU was seen by both the West and Russia as a vital step in reforming Ukraine so that it could become part of the Western alliance - this was said explicitly over and over in Western capitals and NATO papers. Inside Ukraine it wasn’t seen that way, as most Ukrainians wanted to enjoy good relations with both sides but to elevate themselves to Western standards - until 2014. For Russia however, it meant the end of economic influence which was its chief way of exerting political influence to keep Ukraine neutral or friendly, and for an important subset of Ukrainian security and political actors who would win out during 2014, it was in fact a path to NATO.
You’re forgetting that Euromaidan was first and foremost a nationalist and anti-Russian movement, and that the ethnic issue is really what led to the civil war and Russian hostility to Kiev. People for some reason tend to overlook this when talking about EU, NATO etc. The real litmus test for Russia as to whether Ukraine would become a “hostile” (ime pro-West) state was Kiev’s relationship with ethnically Russian regions of Ukraine.
The EU-Ukraine agreement wasn’t the single issue in 2014, though it the catalyst. Economic integration with the EU was seen by both the West and Russia as a vital step in reforming Ukraine so that it could become part of the Western alliance - this was said explicitly over and over in Western capitals and NATO papers. Inside Ukraine it wasn’t seen that way, as most Ukrainians wanted to enjoy good relations with both sides but to elevate themselves to Western standards - until 2014.
Exactly. Ukraine didn’t want to join NATO. It doesn’t matter what NATO or westerns think or Russia thinks, it was up to Ukraine. They had no intentions of joining NATO, until Russia annexed Crimea.
For Russia however, it meant the end of economic influence which was its chief way of exerting political influence to keep Ukraine neutral or friendly, and for an important subset of Ukrainian security and political actors who would win out during 2014, it was in fact a path to NATO.
Except Russia annexed Crimea before the election. If Russia was worried about a pro-NATO government why would they do something that guarantees a pro-NATO government? I think it’s pretty obvious neutral Ukraine was not the goal for Russia.
Exactly. Ukraine didn’t want to join NATO.
If you make a claim this outrageous, you need to back it up. Ukraine officially entered into negotiations to join NATO and entered a membership action program to do so. It does in fact matter what the two forces with most impact on Ukraine’s economy, politics and security environment believe and aim for.
Except Russia annexed Crimea before the election. If Russia was worried about a pro-NATO government why would they do something that guarantees a pro-NATO government?
Let’s say that it was up to Ukraine whether or not to join NATO (which it was.) Russia had absolutely no guarantee that Ukrainian leadership would remain anti-NATO. Time wasn’t on Russia’s side - the lure of the EU and greater association with the West would be a death knell for the style of politics Russia relied upon to forestall pro-NATO reforms in Ukraine. Euromaidan changed the rules of the game. It was a Ukrainian sovereignty movement, with explicitly anti-Putin and some ultranationalist anti-Russian characteristics. The second Yanukovych fled, the game was over for Russia, and the second that he left, Western diplomats became heavily involved in helping craft a new government for Ukraine.
Exactly. Ukraine didn’t want to join NATO. If you make a claim this outrageous, you need to back it up
Ukraine officially entered into negotiations to join NATO and entered a membership action program to do so.
So why didn’t Russia do anything about it back in 2010 when the plan of action was approved? Seems kinda odd to wait 4 years and then suddenly make an issue out of it.
It does in fact matter what the two forces with most impact on Ukraine’s economy, politics and security environment believe and aim for.
I don’t even know what you mean by this sentence.
Except Russia annexed Crimea before the election. If Russia was worried about a pro-NATO government why would they do something that guarantees a pro-NATO government? I already answered this. Euromaidan was a Ukrainian nationalist movement.
Euromaidan was a nationalist movement because the catalyst for the movement was, surprise surprise, Russian meddling. Or did you forget that Putin specifically made a deal with Yanukovych to throw the EU deal under the bus and choose closer ties with Russia. You can’t expect to have a non-nationalistic and not anti-russian protest when the reason for the protest is the desires of the population getting undermined by Russia wanting to maintain their sphere of influence.
What do you mean about the election lol? By March 1 no one on earth was waiting to see if Ukraine would vote in another pro-Russia candidate lol.
I thought it was about being neutral and not about being pro-russia? Pro-russia isn’t the same as being neutral. Ukraine could’ve gone down the path of not wanting to be a part of NATO but wanting to be a part of the EU. Those two things are not the same as evident from Finland and Sweden who for decades were members of the EU and had no desire to be a part of NATO (until Russia threatened them). But we never got to see a potentially neutral outcome because Russia made sure the newly elected government will be pro-NATO.
While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly “neutral”, having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn’t at all to say any of this is Ukraine’s “fault”, only to point out they were not “neutral”)
In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension (source 2014 pro Russia unrest in Ukraine)
Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:
"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.”
Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted." [end quote]
Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2024/05/george-robertson-nato-why-russia-fears-european-union
And Budapest memorandum means… Nothing?
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on from the start:
“Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting any non nuclear party (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) being attacked by an aggressor (similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while “security assurance” would simply specify a promise of non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
It has always read “I promise pinky promise swear I won’t use military action against you but if anyone does I’m not obligated to come to your aid”.
Ukraine signed it not because they misunderstood this, but because it wasn’t their priority. They saw the nuclear weapons as a liability in themselves. They didn’t have the skill or access to maintain or control them (Moscow had always retained operational control and the launch codes) and so they just wanted rid of them. They gave them up in exchange for massive energy deals, not a defence pact.
None of this negates the initial point. Regardless of Putins feelings of insecurity, the treaty as signed. You’re right, the obbligation to adhere can be waved but the right exists nevertheless.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions? Oh Ukraine wants to join the EU zone? We’ll gosh darn it best not offend the big ol Russia. I suppose we should force all of Russia’s neighboring countries to surrender all their free will in exchange for some measure of security from the Kremlin because surely we can trust the Russians not to breach any treaties, right? Right?
This is straight up Kremlin talking points.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions?
You have either been on twitter too long or some other bubble if you think anything I said was “apologia for Russia’s actions”
It is their fault. Russia are belligerent assholes is what I’ve said elsewhere in this thread.
One can state facts about the historical buildup, that’s not the same thing as ascribing blame.
How else do you discuss events of history? If one misinterprets the simple examination of facts as “apologia” and “Kremlin talking points” then how do you even critically examine anything? Or do you just let your view of the world descend into cartoonish 2d generalisations?
That’s fine, and I could be mistaken, but your comments seem to select for particular facts of history and seem to omit others. You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin. Cool. Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria? This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop. You know what this talking point successfully leaves out of the conversation? Ukraine’s agency and the people of Ukraine. It seems the choice is appease Putin endlessly or allow sovereign nations to direct their own destiny. I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that because Ukraine has made decisions that don’t align with whatever hell hole is left of the USSR, they now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion. It’s exhausting.
You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin
It is a threat to Putin!
Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria?
Yes! I went into Georgia at length here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13494524
This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop…It seems the choice is appease Putin… I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that… Ukraine…now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion
I don’t mean at all to patronise you, I assume you are an intelligent person. But have you actually read the thread of posts I’ve made from the top down to here? How did you get through university making the kind of assumptions you have and be so seemingly unaware of how objective facts can be dispassionately stated? Is the habit of reserving judgement and holding things in tension unfamiliar to you? What subject did you study?
I opened my top comment on this thread saying Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault. and it is incredible how (i assume smart) people like you seem to breeze past it and then fear the worst about any comment that doesn’t say exactly what they want it to say in the exact manner they expect it, rather than taking the time to ask ‘ok, but is this unfamiliar statement actually objectively true?’
The EU expanding to Georgia is catastrophic for Putin’s plans to manipulate the middle east. as was Yanukovych stepping down, as was Ukraine planning EU alignement. you can see that right? any no point did i ever say anything of the sort that that justified the violence they then suffered. i went out of my way to state the opposite. the former general secretary of NATO said that EU progress was the “start of the crisis”. but then he also said, and I quoted him, that that does not make it Ukraine’s fault in any way. both these things can be true at the same time! at least to anyone who hasn’t succumbed to twitter-style brainrot
Yes. But you’re not adding anything new to the discourse or that we haven’t heard before. The issue is, I can’t know if you’re being intentional about it, is that sophists will take your statement about Putin feeling threatened and run with it until the night turns blue and discount everything else (especially the agency of sovereign nations). It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway. So Putin feels threatened about economic alliances on his border nations. We get it, don’t worry. Wow, how insightful.
In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension
EU, unlike NATO, is not a military alliance.
The EU treaties actually do have a military component much like NATO, and the “ever closer union” is actually making it a reality, with Western and Northern European militaries actually merging into blocks.
Actually the EU is a closer alliance, as NATO intervention allows for both the attacked party to not ask for aid, and the countries aiding to give as much aid as they deem necessary. The EU mutual defence clause gets triggered immediately on aggression, and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
The US could technically drip-feed aid like with Ukraine, while Germany would have to send in the Bundeswehr immediately if Poland got attacked.
You’re not thinking forth dimensionally, Marty!
Putin feared the EU because it was expanding far faster than NATO. EU expansion offered valuable trade links to former soviet countries and in turn required they implement anti-corruption legislation, and in the words of NATO secretary general Robertson above “changed every aspect of society”. That’s what Putin was afraid of.
Look at what happened to Georgia.
Old soviet regime runs economy into the ground. In 2003 pro-democracy NGOs help organise a peaceful student protests that culminates in the Rose Revolution. Autocratic government out, democratic government elected for first time, immediately start plans to align with EU to recover the economy.
2006 signs joint statement with EU on economic cooperation. Also opens pipeline cutting out Iran and Russia and delivering Azerbaijan oil directly to EU friendly Turkey.
So in 2008 Russia invades Georgia’s Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions in an attempt to destabilise the country. Fortunately this fails.
2013 Georgia signs deeper level of EU cooperation. Ukraine parliament makes legal guarantees it’ll start to align with EU.
Putin was out of time, his Caucasus route to the middle East was closing forever, economic influence via the black sea was closing off, so he grabbed Crimea. It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
And that’s what the NATO secretary general said.
It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
Yeah like with rapists, I don’t really care for their reasoning. NATO is a military alliance, EU isn’t, so even if we assume that worrying about nearby military alliances is a “justified” reason to, idk, invade your neighbouring country, it still isn’t a justification, as EU is not a military alliance.
In terms of Moscow’s loss of control, the EU was proving far more effective than NATO. Like the NATO secretary general said, the EU spread represented the start of the crisis, but the invasion was Russia’s fault. Because they’re belligerent assholes…
The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014
I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.
Them saying that is like someone who beat their wife to death saying “it all began with her having glanced at a man who walked past.”
I think on this occasion I’ll defer to how a secretary general of NATO chooses to phrase it
This is a weird comma, usage.
Why do the Russians think they need a buffer between themselves and NATO anyway? Are they planning on doing things that would make them seem like a threat to NATO, and don’t believe NATO have supersonic planes or something?
Check out libya sometime.
2014 is the exact date of US coup and change of Ukrainian alignment.
You mean the civilian revolution of almost 1M citizens that restored their constitution and took power away from Putin’s sockpuppet, who then tried to claw back Crimea in retaliation? It wasn’t neutral before 2014, and Russia won’t allow it.
None of the CIA/NGO Maidan movement recruits got anywhere close to a government job. “Restored constitution”??? They went full on ethnostate apartheid. “Putin sockpuppet” is the one that tried to get an EU trade deal. Scuttled by IMF.
What exactly do you think life was like in Ukraine for most people under Yanukovych?
Because I can tell you. He literally had people crucified.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/ukrainian-protester-kidnapped-tortured-kiev-bulatov
GDP was far higher. The country wasn’t in ruins, and still had access to the east’s industrialization/steel. It’s population was up to 20m higher. It had democracy, and was free of nazi coercion.
Yet another mentally deficient tankie.
I don’t understand this meme. Ukraine was more or less a neutral state before 2014 and then there was a pro-Western coup that removed the democratically elected gov and set off the violence that is still going on. That’s what drew Russia into the conflict.
Holy Russian apologia Batman!
Which details do you the think I got wrong
“Euromaidan was a Western coup!” is peak vatnik delusion.
Guess the Nuland-Pyatt call was fake then? US totally wasn’t puppeteering 🤡
The past leader of Ukraine was in Putin’s pocket. Zelensky actually changed this and obviously being annexed kinda makes it hard to be neutral, so I’m not sure where you got that from.
The past leader of Ukraine was in Putin’s pocket. Zelensky actually changed this
Huh, that is interesting. Can you tell us any more about his predecessor?
Sure. He tortured people who opposed him in horrific ways.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/ukrainian-protester-kidnapped-tortured-kiev-bulatov
But that’s okay, they were probably evil Western imperialists or whatever, am I right?
whoosh
(hint: check who Zelensky’s predecessor was)
That’s literally about his predecessor.
That’s literally about his predecessor.
The link you posted is from January 2014, which is the time period of his predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor.
Zelensky’s presidency started in 2019. As late as 2018, he was still releasing comedy films which were being banned in Ukraine under his predecessor’s anti-Russian cultural laws.
If you want to brush up on recent history, this video Ukraine: The Avoidable War is not bad.
Former President Viktor Yanukovych actually denied democracy by choosing not to sign a trade agreement with the EU, which was overwhelmingly approved of in parliament and by the public, in 2013 and he was ousted by Ukrainians. The Russians then became involved by fueling counterprotests and annexing Crimea.
AFAIK there were no US sponsored groups, no boots on the ground, but vaguely some 5Bn USD given to Ukraine for defence between 1991 and 2014.
First there was an EU agreement. But then IMF added conditions to make the agreement impossible. That is what caused it/whole to be rejected. Nazis committing a black flag execution of protesters blaming it on government was the coup that caused Yanukovych to flee. The US installed coup rulers imposing apartheid against Russian speakers, and the Odessa massacre is what caused Crimea to leave, and Donbas to demand autonomy.
Odessa massacre? I’m a pinko sympathizer and try to hear out so called “tankies” because they often have a point. but it is just ahistorical to call it a massacre. There is video footage of the pro maidan protesters bringing construction scaffolding to the building to help people escape.
What the living NAFO fuckery is this bs???
That there were survivors means it wasn’t a massacre?
Maidan was a CIA/NGO inspired liberal movement that “just wanted additional trade with EU” as an innocent premise, but with usual CIA/NAZI motives. After CIA/Nazis executed protesters and blamed government, and the US coup that handpicked nazi rulers for Ukraine, Maidan was never heard from again. It sure is not a “pinko” source that claims some rescue attempts with scaffolding existed, but most deaths were the result of nazis shooting those trying to get out of windows. So blatantly absurd to deny the massacre based on an undocumented fiction that some assistance attempts were made. Was there no ww2 holocaust if a german helped a jew escape?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-008919_EN.html
- Misuse of meme format.
- Ungrammatical while insulting others’ intelligence.
- Additional relevant things happened in Ukraine 2014 than the annexation of Crimea. Do you know what they are?
